Photographing Children - Joe Duffy Show

magicbastarder

pete4130 wrote: »

non naked, children in public, with a parent/guardian being photographed by a stranger. So what? Hardly front page news.

pete, you seem to have put a lot more work - and engagement - into the photos you've posted than sniping them from outside a playground. and that makes a big difference.

K_user

pete4130 wrote: »

non naked, children in public, with a parent/guardian being photographed by a stranger. So what? Hardly front page news.


How many images of revered photographers have you admired of children? Probably plenty!?

How many times have you seen a child that you wanted to photograph? Probably at least once!?

How many times have you NOT taken a photo of a child because of the attitude towards taking photos of children in public, even though your intent and images where innocent?
probably at least once!?

Oh lock me up....I've done so much wrong!!!!

In principle I completely agree. In practice however...

Children are fantastic for expressions and their lack of constraint, self awareness, and living for the moment, make for great images. Like some of the fantastic examples that you've provided.

I'm personally involved with a youth organisation and part of my "job", as a volunteer, is to take photographs for promotional reasons. And its not easy. For legal reasons I have to check, double check and triple check with parents. So my personal experience tells me that you have to be careful.

All in all this is just one of those grey areas that we have to decide on for ourselves. While its not illegal, common sense should be followed - again don't stick a lens through a fence to photograph kids!

gsxr1

trooney wrote: »

Wtf does that mean exactly?

It means what it says.

Its creepy and legal or not, I would be holding the stranger till the Garda arrived to check him out. If it was my own child.

Taking pics of kids in a playground. Dear god. It screams pervert.

And if you think i am alone on this view, I challenge you to approach the nearest person to you right now, and ask what they think.

Odds on they would think the same.

pete4130

magicbastarder wrote: »

pete, you seem to have put a lot more work - and engagement - into the photos you've posted than sniping them from outside a playground. and that makes a big difference.

Most of the the really intimate ones are from Santa Monica Pier in California, full of kids, families and basically a massive playground and were shot from the hip, very sly in fashion so even more suspicious to any onlookers. I was in fact inside a playground sniping, albeit in a busier arena.

It's a hot topic. People looking to get their kick from kids are probably the least likely to be hanging around playgrounds.

@jpb: I prefer not not be photographed at all, it doesn't stop me being photographed if I don't want it. I don't have kids so maybe I am missing some point that a parent has? As a parent have you ever seen someone elses child and though "WOW! I want to take that kids picture?" You probably have. Maybe you've been to afraid/self aware to do it. Thats personal choice.
NooSixty works with kids as her profession. She worked with one amazingly smart, articulate, awesome 4-5 year old girl. So photogenic. All I ever wanted to do was take pictures of her. I didn't as it would jeopordise her work/job in those circumstances.

In a pre digital age (lets not get into that argument!) it was less of an issue. Not everyone had a camera on them 24/7. With the advent of camera phones, social media, file sharing and things going viral people are naturally more aware of where and how an image may be used or turn up.


For the images I posted, the last one, with the girl and the quivering lip...I was caught and seen by her mother and given the dirtiest of looks. It didn't bother me. I realised I Was rumbled and moved on. I happened to come across them a short while later and shot from the cuff. Turns out I got a better image. That day, at a theme park, I deliberately set out to shoot photos of children and their emotions. The end result was some images I was happy with.

Who knows why the photographer in the OP's post was shooting photos? He could have gotten a new camera and playing with it, he could have been an artist? Who knows? All these possibilities are far more likely than something sinister with him being in public view and not a real apparent danger to anyone.

mdebets

K_user wrote: »

All in all this is just one of those grey areas that we have to decide on for ourselves. While its not illegal, common sense should be followed - again don't stick a lens through a fence to photograph kids!

If you would really follow common sense, you would loudly call for a ban of parents taking photos of their own children, while strangers should be allowed at the same time. The parent is much more likely (80% vs. 3%) to molest the child then the strangers.

So I would suggest the next time you see a parent taking a picture of their child you should go over to them and ask them to delete the photo, because you are not comfortable with them taking pictures of their child, as they could be a pervert, who wants to share the picture of their child on the internet.
After all, you do want to protect the children, don't you?

magicbastarder

gsxr1 wrote: »

Its creepy and legal or not, I would be holding the stranger till the Garda arrived to check him out. If it was my own child.

you'd respond to a non-crime by committing a crime?

OldNotWIse

gsxr1 wrote: »

It means what it says.

Its creepy and legal or not, I would be holding the stranger till the Garda arrived to check him out. If it was my own child.

Taking pics of kids in a playground. Dear god. It screams pervert.

And if you think i am alone on this view, I challenge you to approach the nearest person to you right now, and ask what they think.

Odds on they would think the same.

I think you'd find yourself facing charges of false imprisonment if you did this??

pete4130

gsxr1 wrote: »

It means what it says.

Its creepy and legal or not, I would be holding the stranger till the Garda arrived to check him out. If it was my own child.

Taking pics of kids in a playground. Dear god. It screams pervert.

And if you think i am alone on this view, I challenge you to approach the nearest person to you right now, and ask what they think.

Odds on they would think the same.

If you were holding someone you could expect some verbal, if not physical abusem then when the authorities arrive, possibilities of a charge against you. Whether you think thats right or wrong....thats how it is.

I know if someone held me, depending on my mood and their attitude, if I thought it was funny, they could expect anything from laughter or something more serious. You can't just go grabbing people that are taking pictures.

Thats taking the law into your own hands, and if thats the case, the photographer, taking the law into their own hands has every right physically use any means to stop you restraining them...so where does it end?

Tallon

gsxr1 wrote: »

It means what it says.

Its creepy and legal or not, I would be holding the stranger till the Garda arrived to check him out. If it was my own child.

Taking pics of kids in a playground. Dear god. It screams pervert.

And if you think i am alone on this view, I challenge you to approach the nearest person to you right now, and ask what they think.

Odds on they would think the same.

If you touched me, I'd be doing your for assault

K_user

mdebets wrote: »

If you would really follow common sense, you would loudly call for a ban of parents taking photos of their own children, while strangers should be allowed at the same time. The parent is much more likely (80% vs. 3%) to molest the child then the strangers.

So I would suggest the next time you see a parent taking a picture of their child you should go over to them and ask them to delete the photo, because you are not comfortable with them taking pictures of their child, as they could be a pervert, who wants to share the picture of their child on the internet.
After all, you do want to protect the children, don't you?

Actually what I wanted was to have a sensible conversation and to give my opinion based on personal experience.

K_user

pete4130 wrote: »

If you were holding someone you could expect some verbal, if not physical abusem then when the authorities arrive, possibilities of a charge against you. Whether you think thats right or wrong....thats how it is.

I know if someone held me, depending on my mood and their attitude, if I thought it was funny, they could expect anything from laughter or something more serious. You can't just go grabbing people that are taking pictures.

Thats taking the law into your own hands, and if thats the case, the photographer, taking the law into their own hands has every right physically use any means to stop you restraining them...so where does it end?

D*mn right.

There are vast differences between someone doing something which is legal, but perhaps frowned apon by some, and doing something that is illegal, in this case physically restraining someone.

dirtyghettokid

Cienciano wrote: »

I spend 15 minutes the other day taking a photo of a drainpipe. I don't think taking pictures of people I don't know is weird at all.

i said children, not people. look -- the simple fact of the matter is most parents give a ****, and would be mega pissed off to find someone "stealthily" taking photos of their kids, whether they mean any harm or not! that's just the way society is. like it or lump it!

gsxr1

K_user wrote: »

D*mn right.

There are vast differences between someone doing something which is legal, but perhaps frowned apon by some, and doing something that is illegal, in this case physically restraining someone.

Yeah yeah. Ye can huff and puff all the way the bank, but when you interfere with someones kids like the OP has described, expect a parent to kick up.

Why not just stop taking sneeky pictures of children and not stir a parents first natural reaction.

I would wonder if such a case did arrive in court, what the judge would rule on.

Side with a sneaky, possible pervert photographer
or side with a parent(s) who thought he was doing the right thing .

These days, with all the sick feckers out there. I bet nothing would be done, and the media would turn the photographer into an example.

jay-me

gsxr1 wrote: »

Yeah yeah. Ye can huff and puff all the way the bank, but when you interfere with someones kids like the OP has described, expect a parent to kick up.

Why not just stop taking sneeky pictures of children and not stir a parents first natural reaction.

I would wonder if such a case did arrive in court, what the judge would rule on.

Side with a sneaky, possible pervert photographer
or side with a parent(s) who thought he was doing the right thing .

These days, with all the sick feckers out there. I bet nothing would be done, and the media would turn the photographer into an example.

In all seriousness what the hell do you think is going to happen to kids that get their photo legally taken? The utter tripe in this thread is madness.. People are way too sensitive when it comes to the idea of peadophiles. If parents were more vigilant in looking after their kids and bringing them up with cop on they wouldn't end up getting hurt!!! Children don't get snatched by perverts when they are being watched by their parents nor do they get in contact with them unless they are allowed free access to the internet etc etc but it certainly isn't from some "tog" taking a photo of them in a playground!

gsxr1

jay-me wrote: »

In all seriousness what the hell do you think is going to happen to kids that get their photo legally taken? The utter tripe in this thread is madness.. People are way too sensitive when it comes to the idea of peadophiles. If parents were more vigilant in looking after their kids and bringing them up with cop on they wouldn't end up getting hurt!!! Children don't get snatched by perverts when they are being watched by their parents nor do they get in contact with them unless they are allowed free access to the internet etc etc but it certainly isn't from some "tog" taking a photo of them in a playground!

So its the parents fault now that there is freaks around stalking children. Dear god . Your right about this thread being tripe.

Lets make this simple for the above member.

1.Dont take creepy pics of kids at a playground because it makes you look like a pedophile .

2.And don't get upset when a parent grabs you by the neck for being a creepy fecker who takes pics of their children playing in a playground.

If you cant see how the two statements worry people, then you may want to take a long look at yourself before the voices start telling you to do bad things.:rolleyes:

K_user

gsxr1 wrote: »

Yeah yeah. Ye can huff and puff all the way the bank, but when you interfere with someones kids like the OP has described, expect a parent to kick up.

Why not just stop taking sneeky pictures of children and not stir a parents first natural reaction.

I would wonder if such a case did arrive in court, what the judge would rule on.

Side with a sneaky, possible pervert photographer
or side with a parent(s) who thought he was doing the right thing .

These days, with all the sick feckers out there. I bet nothing would be done, and the media would turn the photographer into an example.

But its not about a judges opinion, its about the law. And you said it yourself "possible".

If it ended up in court that a "normal" street photographer, who had multiple images containing lots of subject matter was held against his will, by an irate member of the public, for no reason other than taking photographs in a public area that happened to contain children. A judge would have no choice but to find in his/her favour, as the photographer was well within their rights.

Because to rule against them would require more than one change to the law, a banning of public photography and the right for a "possible" pervert to be physically held by another member of the public, based solely on the opinion of the accuser.

Even if the police were called to the playpark, the only thing that they could hold the photographer on would be disturbing the peace, but they would also have to take in the angry parent for assault. And which of those cases would/could end up in front of a judge?

I've had this debate many times and I always say the same thing, that in Ireland its not illegal to photograph children in a public area, no more than its illegal to photograph a dog in a public park. Although it is a sure way to p*ss off parents and maybe get a black eye for your trouble. And I've found that alot of people aren't aware of this fact. So these situations need to be treated with care. And as I've said earlier in this thread, its a very social grey area and common sense needs to be used on both sides of the debate.

K_user

gsxr1 wrote: »

1.Dont take creepy pics of kids at a playground because it makes you look like a pedophile .

Interestingly that is both completely correct and completely wrong!

Its the curse of the DSLR owner to be noticed. Large bulky camera's stand out. But a guy with a camera phone goes unnoticed. A real pedophile is unlikely to be standing in plain site with a DSLR. The quiet guy on the park bench who has been playing on his phone for the last hour, he's the dodgy one!

gsxr1

K_user wrote: »

Interestingly that is both completely correct and completely wrong!

Its the curse of the DSLR owner to be noticed. Large bulky camera's stand out. But a guy with a camera phone goes unnoticed. A real pedophile is unlikely to be standing in plain site with a DSLR. The quiet guy on the park bench who has been playing on his phone for the last hour, he's the dodgy one!

Im sorry if I appeared rude .

Its not my intention to be the odd one out here.

I just dont like the idea of this type of street photography.

These days an over protective parent is not generally a bad thing.

Cienciano

gsxr1 wrote: »

Agreed also.

Its creepy and if it was my kid a stranger was taking photos of, there would be a incident .

Jimmy Saville type togs should cop on a bit.

Jimmy Saville type? You don't see a difference between someone who has sex with children and someone who photographs them?

dirtyghettokid wrote: »

i said children, not people. look -- the simple fact of the matter is most parents give a ****, and would be mega pissed off to find someone "stealthily" taking photos of their kids, whether they mean any harm or not! that's just the way society is. like it or lump it!

Children are people!

Tallon

gsxr1 wrote: »

1.Dont take creepy pics of kids at a playground because it makes you look like a pedophile .

You are so ignorant it's ridiculous!

Wearing crocs makes you look like a pedophile

Wearing an anorak makes you look like a pedophile

Driving a white van while sporting a moustache and thick, coke bottle glasses makes you look like a pedophile

None of these are a legitimate reason to accuse someone of doing something they shouldn't be

You need to accept the fact that people are allowed take photos of you and your children!

If you don't like it, raise your concerns with the Gardaí. Take a photo of the 'suspect' or get a description or point him out!

dirtyghettokid

i think this is getting a bit heated... can we bring it down a notch or two?
i don't want people feeling hurt or insulted.
it's a topic that people obviously feel strongly about one way or the other.
just have to accept that everyone has different views and leave it at that really!

gsxr1

Tallon wrote: »

You are so ignorant it's ridiculous!

Wearing crocs makes you look like a pedophile

Wearing an anorak makes you look like a pedophile

Driving a white van while sporting a moustache and thick, coke bottle glasses makes you look like a pedophile

None of these are a legitimate reason to accuse someone of doing something they shouldn't be

You need to accept the fact that people are allowed take photos of you and your children!

If you don't like it, raise your concerns with the Gardaí. Take a photo of the 'suspect' or get a description or point him out!

I do accept it.
I dont regard snapping kids in a playground the same as wearing crocs.

Cant you see the difference.

Its just NOT socially acceptable to photograph children with out consent.



I really cant comprehend how you think on this mate.

You don't seem to get how a parent may see a stranger taking pictures of their children to be highly inflammatory . Legal or not, you may well be going home with a injury or broken camera.

I am by no means violent, as are most people. But if you pose a threat to someones child, you will bring out a side of them rarely exposed.
And to most, sneeking about with a camera where kids play is very very suspicious.

Why not post this question on the parenting forum to see what reaction you get?

Its creepy. Really. It is.

By the way, just because something is not illegal does not mean its good conduct.

mdebets

gsxr1 wrote: »

Its just NOT socially acceptable to photograph children with out consent.

It is socially acceptable, because the law reflects what is socially acceptable. If it were not socially acceptable, the law would forbid it.

gsxr1 wrote: »

I am by no means violent, as are most people. But if you pose a threat to someones child, you will bring out a side of them rarely exposed.
And to most, sneeking about with a camera where kids play is very very suspicious.

You should read statistics (see my earlier posts). You as a parent are much more likely to sexually assault your child (statistically) then any stranger is. So you (statistically) are a much higher risk to your children than a stranger.

Tallon

gsxr1 wrote: »

I do accept it.
I dont regard snapping kids in a playground the same as wearing crocs.

Cant you see the difference.

Its just NOT socially acceptable to photograph children with out consent.



I really cant comprehend how you think on this mate.

You don't seem to get how a parent may see a stranger taking pictures of their children to be highly inflammatory . Legal or not, you may well be going home with a injury or broken camera.

I am by no means violent, as are most people. But if you pose a threat to someones child, you will bring out a side of them rarely exposed.
And to most, sneeking about with a camera where kids play is very very suspicious.

Why not post this question on the parenting forum to see what reaction you get?

Its creepy. Really. It is.

By the way, just because something is not illegal does not mean its good conduct.

I do! I have said it several times in this thread

You don't seem to be able to see past everyone is against your children!

You've the same tunnel vision as the father in the Podcast...

SinisterDexter

Anybody stop to think that he may have been working for an insurance company taking photos of a 'guy' who has 'back issues' and is claiming off the insurance. He wouldn't want to be showing what he was really taking photos of, incase the other guy went and told the target.

Just my quick thoughts on the situation.

On second thought.... He may have been the target, no wonder he would be angry!

EyeBlinks

Are we there yet

ihastakephoto

this thread is like crazy bait

Cienciano

gsxr1 wrote: »

But if you pose a threat to someones child, you will bring out a side of them rarely exposed.

How is taking a photo of someone where they don't even realise it "posing a threat"? I reckon seeing their dad starting a fight with a stranger would do far more damage to the child.

thebaz

ihastakephoto wrote: »

this thread is like crazy bait

its become like the Joe Duffy show itself

crusher000

jay-me wrote: »

In all seriousness what the hell do you think is going to happen to kids that get their photo legally taken? The utter tripe in this thread is madness.. People are way too sensitive when it comes to the idea of peadophiles. If parents were more vigilant in looking after their kids and bringing them up with cop on they wouldn't end up getting hurt!!! Children don't get snatched by perverts when they are being watched by their parents nor do they get in contact with them unless they are allowed free access to the internet etc etc but it certainly isn't from some "tog" taking a photo of them in a playground!

For the love of God. So all evils that fall upon a child is due to bad parenting. "People are too sensitive when it comes to the idea of peadophiles. If parents were more vigilant in looking after their kids and bringing them up with cop on they wouldn't end up getting hurt!!! "

If parents didn't bring children to the pool they won't drown. Christ all might . If it's my child I will protect them and if I take offence at a photographer taking photos of my child I will. It seems from some of the posts here that allowing someone unknown to you take a photo of your child has more rights than you the parent showing concern over said action. It's a free country and take pictures all you want but if I don't want my child for what ever reason to be photographed it's not going to happen. Find a new subject matter from a parent that doesn't mind.